ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Reproducibility in Studies on Dental Restorative Materials: A Critical Review.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The evaluation of dental restorative composites relies largely on laboratory studies performed under controlled conditions using standardized testing protocols. However, despite the apparent simplicity and standardization of many commonly used methods, published studies often report surprisingly heterogeneous results. This critical review examines the issue of reproducibility through three representative laboratory tests that differ in their apparent methodological complexity: bond strength, degree of conversion, and flexural strength. Bond strength testing is well recognized for its limited reproducibility due to numerous technique-sensitive procedures and methodological variables. More surprisingly, similar problems exist in degree of conversion measurements, where seemingly minor analytical differences related to spectroscopic technique and data processing can substantially influence the reported values and even alter the relative ranking of materials. The problem becomes particularly striking for flexural strength, a property commonly regarded as one of the simplest and most standardized laboratory measurements. Evidence from published studies and network meta-analyses demonstrates that the reported flexural strength of the same commercial composite may in specific cases vary by more than 100 MPa between studies, with some well-established materials occasionally failing to meet the minimum requirement specified by ISO 4049. These examples illustrate that methodological variability may become sufficiently large to obscure genuine differences between materials, complicate evidence synthesis, and weaken confidence in laboratory findings. By examining three widely used laboratory tests for resin composites, this review aims to raise awareness of the growing but often overlooked problem of limited reproducibility in laboratory studies on dental composites. Such variability may complicate comparisons between materials, interpretation of individual findings, and the development of reliable evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.